On Wednesday, the New Zealand High Court ruled that Kim Dotcom, the founder of Megaupload, will be allowed to take out a $4.8 million loan to pay the corporation’s legal bills and rent on Dotcom's mansion.

Dotcom holds NZ$10 million (US$8 million) in local government bonds—required of him to obtain permanent residency in New Zealand—which were previously frozen, but will be held as collateral. He currently faces multiple federal charges in the United States of copyright infringement, conspiracy and money laundering. The German entrepreneur has denied all charges.

"Let's get together, let's all unite, or they will do whatever they like," Dotcom wrote on Twitter.

The Megaupload founder also said that the new money would allow him to pay his attorneys, who have previously been operating on the assumption that Dotcom’s assets would eventually be unfrozen. "The plan of the US government and New Zealand prosecutors to keep us locked up and from access to a proper legal defense has failed," Dotcom said in an e-mail to Reuters.

"We have a competent legal team that can now operate at full capacity to defend us."

In an e-mail sent to Ars, Ira Rothken, Dotcom’s chief global counsel based in California, said that he was "pleased" with the ruling.

"We are thankful that members of our global legal team have been courageous enough to work on the largest copyright case in history for little to no compensation to this point," he wrote. "We are hopeful that the US Court will follow the lead of the New Zealand judiciary and free up Megaupload assets in the near future in order to help fund the rest of the global defense."

Dotcom’s legal team in New Zealand has been vigorously fighting to regain his assets and to mount a legal defense. Following multiple judicialreviews, New Zealand courts have found that the warrants originally used to mount a full-on assault of the Dotcom mansion in January 2012 were invalid. The hearing to determine whether Dotcom will be extradited to the United States will be convened in March 2013.

1. Because its right.2. Because if it doesn't the DoJ will keep this stupid crap up.

I mean really... The money is already spent and its the MPAA/DoJ's fault, not Kim's.

Yep. I'm in the US as well and I'll gladly pay a reasonable price to put the US in its place. For one thing, I believe in principle and the US is terribly wrong; for another, I don't want other countries to get any ideas and try to extradite me or someone I love.

The beginning of the end of the case against MU and KDC.He's hired very good legal reps. In the end this will save the U.S. taxpayer money, as it should help put a stop to this BS. It'll also help us consumers by ending the "AA's" monopoly on content. They tried to land a fish that won't stop fighting. Carry on KDC. Don't go away.

And? Justification for what? Why assume anything given my past assertions that Kim should never have been charged?

I'm simply sick and tired of my tax dollars going to support the copyright industry. Let the studios pay their own way.

Perhaps I read your post the wrong way, but the wording made it come across to me as if you meant the DoJ should win because otherwise the money spent on prosecution would be wasted. I have no idea what your stances on the topic are otherwise.

1. Because its right.2. Because if it doesn't the DoJ will keep this stupid crap up.

I mean really... The money is already spent and its the MPAA/DoJ's fault, not Kim's.

Yep. I'm in the US as well and I'll gladly pay a reasonable price to put the US in its place. For one thing, I believe in principle and the US is terribly wrong; for another, I don't want other countries to get any ideas and try to extradite me or someone I love.

Don't worry, as people from the UK well know, the US's position on extradition is extremely one sided. You're pretty safe here.

With the US seriously overreaching it's authority at the behest of corporate interests, I hope this all gets dropped on principle alone.

Sorry to the rest of the world - US Citizen.

Agree 100%. This is a disgusting overreach of authority. In the event the case doesn't get dropped, I hope Dotcom really sticks it to the DoJ. At the very least it would be an entertaining trial.

Problem is, sticking it to the DoJ means sticking it to the tax payer. You don't think the government funds itself?

The same is true of each and every government breach of due process, citizen and non-citizen rights, and abuse of power that has ever happened then been challenged legally in the history of government. What's your point, if you even had one?

With the US seriously overreaching it's authority at the behest of corporate interests, I hope this all gets dropped on principle alone.

Sorry to the rest of the world - US Citizen.

Agree 100%. This is a disgusting overreach of authority. In the event the case doesn't get dropped, I hope Dotcom really sticks it to the DoJ. At the very least it would be an entertaining trial.

Problem is, sticking it to the DoJ means sticking it to the tax payer. You don't think the government funds itself?

How about this? Dotcom sticks it to the DoJ, and to pay for this, we milk the money out of the MPAA/RIAA through various methods. Perhaps call bullshit on their crooked accounting practices and get more tax dollars, or take it out of blank media levies they've managed to get in places around the world.

I agree completely. The DOJ just jumped when orders came down to "bust this guy", probably without much consideration of the real legality of his operation. More likely action was based on the assertions of the "AA's" (and their campaign contributions).Then they follow SOP and seize all of his assets to prevent a substantial defense. Too bad KDC had too much money, too many influential friends (like the EFF or whatever it's called), too much resilience, and the brains (and money) to hire really good legal help instead of laying down to die, as they expected he would. Plus he has a legitimate legal case of innocence and at least 50 million reasons ($) to continue to fight.This stuff would have worked against a smaller, less combative target. MU and KDC seem to have gotten too big to be simply steam-rolled.

1. Because its right.2. Because if it doesn't the DoJ will keep this stupid crap up.

I mean really... The money is already spent and its the MPAA/DoJ's fault, not Kim's.

Yep. I'm in the US as well and I'll gladly pay a reasonable price to put the US in its place. For one thing, I believe in principle and the US is terribly wrong; for another, I don't want other countries to get any ideas and try to extradite me or someone I love.

+1000

It's very hard to railroad someone in the courts if they have money to fight back. Glad this went the right way.

I agree completely. The DOJ just jumped when orders came down to "bust this guy", probably without much consideration of the real legality of his operation. More likely action was based on the assertions of the "AA's" (and their campaign contributions).Then they follow SOP and seize all of his assets to prevent a substantial defense. Too bad KDC had too much money, too many influential friends (like the EDF or whatever it's called), too much resilience, and the brains (and money) to hire really good legal help instead of laying down to die, as they expected he would. Plus he has a legitimate legal case of innocence and at least 50 million reasons ($) to continue to fight.This stuff would have worked against a smaller, less combative target. MU and KDC seem to have gotten too big to be simply steam-rolled.

Like Richard O'Dwyer for example,a student who ran TVshack.net. He is being extradited from the UK* to the US** with ease.

* The site was just links, not even hosting like Dotcom. This was also found to be perfectly legal in previous UK cases.** .... Next up is extraditing people from Amsterdam for substances that are legal there but not in the US because a person in the US saw a picture of it.

** .... Next up is extraditing people from Amsterdam for substances that are legal there but not in the US because a person in the US saw a picture of it.

National law in most states permits courts to exercise jurisdiction over conduct by persons abroad which harms the national--particularly the security--interests of the forum state in violation of its own national criminal law (protective or security principle or compétence réelle ou compétence du protection).

** .... Next up is extraditing people from Amsterdam for substances that are legal there but not in the US because a person in the US saw a picture of it.

National law in most states permits courts to exercise jurisdiction over conduct by persons abroad which harms the national--particularly the security--interests of the forum state in violation of its own national criminal law (protective or security principle or compétence réelle ou compétence du protection).

Yes, rule of thumb is (and is true for USA) you are still bound by US laws while traveling as well as the local laws. So just because it's legal there and not in the US doesn't make it legal for a US citizen. I guess I failed at infering that it wouldn't be a US citizen being extradited to the US, I just wanted to avoid saying Amsterdammer or Mokummer or whatever the proper term is.

With the US seriously overreaching it's authority at the behest of corporate interests, I hope this all gets dropped on principle alone.

Sorry to the rest of the world - US Citizen.

Agree 100%. This is a disgusting overreach of authority. In the event the case doesn't get dropped, I hope Dotcom really sticks it to the DoJ. At the very least it would be an entertaining trial.

Problem is, sticking it to the DoJ means sticking it to the tax payer. You don't think the government funds itself?

How about this? Dotcom sticks it to the DoJ, and to pay for this, we milk the money out of the MPAA/RIAA through various methods. Perhaps call bullshit on their crooked accounting practices and get more tax dollars, or take it out of blank media levies they've managed to get in places around the world.

That's the way it should be. You want the benefit of copyright, you also pay to protect it. I don't want my tax dollars going to protect your copyright since it's a civil matter.

That's the way it should be. You want the benefit of copyright, you also pay to protect it. I don't want my tax dollars going to protect your copyright since it's a civil matter.

I think these copyright infingrment issues should be handled in a more traditionally civil manner. The CEO's should personally face the accused infinger in a duel. I figure at least by the 1,000th infringer mark, the copyright issues will have settled themselves.

** .... Next up is extraditing people from Amsterdam for substances that are legal there but not in the US because a person in the US saw a picture of it.

National law in most states permits courts to exercise jurisdiction over conduct by persons abroad which harms the national--particularly the security--interests of the forum state in violation of its own national criminal law (protective or security principle or compétence réelle ou compétence du protection).

Yes, rule of thumb is (and is true for USA) you are still bound by US laws while traveling as well as the local laws. So just because it's legal there and not in the US doesn't make it legal for a US citizen. I guess I failed at infering that it wouldn't be a US citizen being extradited to the US, I just wanted to avoid saying Amsterdammer or Mokummer or whatever the proper term is.

First heard this story on npr. Dutch are cracking down on foreigners coming over the border to toke it up on their soil. One mayor interviewed said it was b/c foreigners would come over and just trash the place, literally leave trash all over the place. Some think that's a shoddy excuse to just crackdown on rights/privilages. Others felt it was getting cracked down on, b/c they were getting a bad reputation as a toke tourist attraction. Civil tourists go to other countries; unruly tourists go to netherlands to toke it up. I can see that stigma being a bad thing. But, there was a lot of income showing up from foreigners. Now the toke shops are wondering what's gonna happen next.

I wonder how long it will be before the "KDC is just a dirty lowdown criminal" people show up on this thread? (I guess whenever their feeds show them another KDC story has hit the Web.)

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm truly ready to believe that the DOJ is over-reaching and inappropriately answering to corporate masters on this one, but don't you all feel at least a little weird defending this guy? Regardless of how you feel about copyright law, his business model was clearly to get filthy rich providing overly entitled people free access to other people's creative product without any intention of compensating the creators, wasn't it? Is this really who you want to hold up as a "freedom fighter" or whatever you've ginned him up as in your minds? I would expect more of a "yeah, he is clearly a scumbag, but we have to have due-process to protect even scumbags, or we'll all be at risk" tone rather than this gleeful "let's all stick it to the man" attitude that is running rampant in these comments.

He's hired very good legal reps. In the end this will save the U.S. taxpayer money, as it should help put a stop to this BS.

They didn't have to. FBI practically had a diarrhea all over NZ legal procedures when it came to this case. They screwed up the raid, they took the computer records against court ruling and they kept refusing to show them evidence that the Dotcom's lawyers requested (and ordered by the court).

I wonder how long it will be before the "KDC is just a dirty lowdown criminal" people show up on this thread? (I guess whenever their feeds show them another KDC story has hit the Web.)

Okay, I'll bite.

I'm truly ready to believe that the DOJ is over-reaching and inappropriately answering to corporate masters on this one, but don't you all feel at least a little weird defending this guy? Regardless of how you feel about copyright law, his business model was clearly to get filthy rich providing overly entitled people free access to other people's creative product without any intention of compensating the creators, wasn't it? Is this really who you want to hold up as a "freedom fighter" or whatever you've ginned him up as in your minds? I would expect more of a "yeah, he is clearly a scumbag, but we have to have due-process to protect even scumbags, or we'll all be at risk" tone rather than this gleeful "let's all stick it to the man" attitude that is running rampant in these comments.

There's a few layers in business that keep most real creators from ever being compensated properly, so most people are fed up with the 'owners' of a 'creators' work, if not in belief of the owners being worse than Dotcom. On top of that, it has been repeatedly and empirically shown, any harm done to the owner's is actually their own fault for refusing to acknowledge the customers. So Dotcom wouldn't exist without them screwing up in the first place.

Despite your apparent victory in the corrent effort, I would council you to tone it down a bit. You have many potential friends out here among those that cheer for the underdog. If you present yourself as a rabid dog, you won't get much help. Just sayin'.

I think Dotcom is a vainglory scum. But even vainglory scum deserves a fair trial. As it stands, FBI seems to be doing everything it possibly can to extradite him to US without going through fair and just legal process.